Promoting Responsible Dog Ownership in Scotland: Microchipping and other Measures. An Analysis of Consultation Responses

9. Respondents' Other Comments

9.1 This chapter presents the findings from the last four questions in the consultation. These focused on respondents' other comments - about the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping, about how to promote responsible dog ownership, and about the consultation process itself.

Question 23: Do you have any other comments on the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs in Scotland?

Question 24: Do you have any other comments on the promotion of responsible dog ownership in Scotland to help improve the safety of our communities from dangerous and out of control dogs?

Question 25: Do you consider that the consultation paper explained the key issues sufficiently for you to properly consider your responses?

Question 26: Do you consider that you had sufficient time to respond to the consultation?

Question 27: Do you have any other comments on the way this consultation has been conducted?

Q23 Other comments on the introduction of compulsory microchipping

9.2 Question 23 asked respondents if they had any other comments on the possible introduction of compulsory microchipping for dogs. This was an open question with no associated tick-box question.

9.3 In total, there were 472 comments made at Question 23. In about two-thirds of these, respondents simply reiterated their support, or lack of support, for compulsory microchipping. As many of the same points were made in response to Question 17 (above), they are not repeated here, except to say that the issue of enforcement was a very common theme.

9.4 Respondents emphasised the importance of enforcement to the effectiveness of the policy, but at the same time highlighted the difficulties and likely significant costs of enforcement. In particular, organisational respondents involved in enforcement pointed out that local authorities and other enforcement bodies are unlikely to take on this additional responsibility without increased funding. It is perhaps also worth noting that rescue and rehoming organisations appeared to be divided in relation to their support for the policy.

9.5 There were suggestions that the Scottish Government should learn from the experiences of other European countries that have implemented a policy of compulsory microchipping for dogs.

9.6 There was also a plea from Guide Dogs Scotland that any potential legislation is drafted in such a way so as to avoid unintended negative consequences on their breeding and training programmes. Further detailed discussions are likely to be required with this and other similar organisations that train and support working dogs.

Q24 Other comments on the promotion of responsible dog ownership

9.7 Question 24 asked respondents if they had any other comments on the promotion of responsible dog ownership in Scotland to help improve the safety of communities from dangerous and out of control dogs. Again, this was an open question that invited comments, with no associated tick-box question.

9.8 Altogether 915 respondents made comments at Question 24. In addition, 569 respondents made comments at Question 20 in the original on-line response form. ^[11] These latter comments were analysed along with the responses to Question 24.

9.9 Respondents' suggestions covered five main themes.

Educate dog owners, children and the public

9.10 Respondents repeatedly stated that, in relation to promoting responsible dog ownership, education was the key. Respondents suggested that many perceived problems with dogs are due "entirely to the ignorance of their owners" - not only about what the law requires of them but also about how to train their dog.

9.11 The focus on education (and training) was a theme that arose repeatedly throughout the questionnaire. There was no specific question covering education (and training), but respondents made comments on this topic in every substantive question as well as at Question 24. Overall, almost half of all organisational respondents, and approximately one-third of individual respondents raised this issue in their responses at some point.

9.12 A wide range of suggestions were made about how to improve education of dog owners, children and non-dog-owning public, including:

• Compulsory dog ownership classes (including subsidised classes for those who cannot afford them) and tests for all dog owners (about their legal duties, how to understand dog body language, etc.)
• Breed-specific education for owners of particular types of dogs
• A TV series giving practical demonstrations of dog training
• Improved access to local authority facilities for dog training classes
• Increased support for public events run by charities, vets and local authorities (e.g. "Bark in the Park")
• A "basic dog ownership guide" to be given to everyone who has a pet microchipped
• More education of children and young people in schools about how to behave around a dog and how to care for a dog
• Public awareness of what it means to be a responsible dog owner
• Publication (and maintenance) of a list of approved dog trainers in each local area.

9.13 There were also numerous calls for better regulation of trainers and behaviourists. Respondents with professional qualifications and respondents representing animal rescue / welfare centres, in particular, frequently commented that there are too many "inexperienced trainers promoting silly ideas" that cause behavioural problems in dogs. Others suggested that many current trainers are teaching outdated methods. Respondents wanted to see formal accreditation of dog trainers and behaviourists, and recommendations of only those who are government approved.

Better enforcement

9.14 There was a general view among respondents that much more needs to be done to enforce current legislation, and there was a call for more resources to be allocated to this. Respondents often claimed that neither the police nor local authorities took seriously complaints made by members of the public about dog nuisance. Some advocated more of a "joined up approach" from the police, local authorities, social services, housing officers, education and other relevant bodies.

9.15 Respondents involved in enforcement commented that the resource implications of the Control of Dogs Act had not been considered before the Act came into force, and that the enforcement of the Act and monitoring of DCNs were both very resource intensive. Concerns were expressed about the substantial variation in the number of DCNs issued across different local authority areas in Scotland since the implementation of the Act, and there were calls to examine the reasons for these variations before passing additional legislation which may also not be effectively enforced.

Undertake a thorough review of existing legislation

9.16 There was general agreement among respondents that there were issues in the existing dog laws which should be addressed before new legislation was introduced. Some called upon the Scottish Government not to rush through ineffective legislation, but to develop laws that are fit for purpose (and to let the rest of the UK follow Scotland's lead).

9.17 Respondents generally saw the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 as superior to the UK Dangerous Dogs Act, and there was a prevalent view that "breed-specific" legislation had been shown "not to work". However, there was also a group of respondents who believed it was appropriate to acknowledge the fact that some breeds have characteristics (including their size and strength) which makes them more dangerous than other breeds. Some among this latter group felt that the list of "dangerous dogs" should be updated.

9.18 Apart from suggested amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act to drop any mention of specific breeds - which some thought simply made those breeds more attractive to "the wrong kinds of people" - there were also suggestions (including from respondents involved in enforcement) that:

• The legislation needs to be amended to make enforcement easier. There were reports that the police generally do not enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act unless someone has been attacked. This means that concerns reported by neighbours and members of communities are frequently not acted upon.
• There needs to be clarity around the test for "reasonable apprehension" in cases prosecuted under the Act.
• There should be provision for formal notification powers under this Act.
• There needs to be an "alignment of powers" to enable dangerous dogs to be removed from communities more quickly. Current processes were described as "lengthy" and dependent in some cases on the successful criminal conviction of the owner.

9.19 Amendments and improvements were also suggested in relation to the Control of Dogs Act. For example:

• Existing guidelines need to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of local authorities and the police in enforcing the Act.
• Police responsibilities for dealing with stray dogs out of hours also need to be clarified. There were reports that the police do not act in relation to stray dogs because of the cost of kennelling and because they do not see it as a priority.
• The Act should be amended to make it an offence not to provide information to an enforcement officer when requested.
• Provision should be made to increase the awareness within local neighbourhoods and communities of the conditions of a particular Dog Control Notice (DCN), and to enable communities to become involved in the monitoring of these notices.
• An amendment may be needed to allow the police to issue a DCN when a prosecution fails to proceed under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

9.20 In addition to their comments about current legislation, respondents also wanted to see any new legislation address the regulation of commercial dog walkers, trainers and behaviourists. Respondents also wanted heavier penalties for individuals or organisations found guilty of abuse or neglecting animals.

Tackle the indiscriminate breeding of dogs

9.21 The indiscriminate breeding of dogs was seen to be at the root of irresponsible dog ownership. Respondents repeatedly called for this issue to be tackled, and argued that until it was tackled effectively, irresponsible dog ownership would continue. Suggestions included: putting more resources into neutering schemes and giving incentives to people to get their dog neutered / spayed; requiring breeders to register every dog they breed and to be held responsible for those dogs for their lifetime; allowing only registered breeders to breed dogs; requiring housing associations to enforce a ban on the breeding of dogs in social rented properties; tackling puppy farming and educating the general public not to buy a dog from a puppy farmer; and banning the sale of puppies on social networking and free ad websites.

Require all dogs to be on a lead in public places and provide designated dog exercise areas

9.22 A very strong theme in the comments, particularly among some community respondents and dog rescue services, was that all dogs should be required to be walked on a lead in public places (including along public pavements). This was also a strong theme among respondents who identified themselves as dog owners, including some who had experience of their own on-lead dog being attacked by off-lead dogs.

9.23 However, respondents also highlighted the importance of exercise for dogs, and this requires dogs to be able to run off-lead. In relation to this, there were calls for local authorities to provide fenced areas where dogs can be exercised separately from children and other park or green space users.

Other suggestions

9.24 Other suggestions, mentioned less often, included:

• Professional dog walking businesses should be regulated. Respondents wanted better monitoring and regulation of dog walking businesses, and they wanted assurance that these businesses had public liability insurance and were submitting tax returns. The point was made that if there is an incident with a dog being walked by a dog walker, current legislation would result in the owner, not the dog walker, receiving a Dog Control Notice. This anomaly needs to be addressed.
• Ban certain people from owning dogs. Different respondents suggested that certain people should not be permitted to own a dog, including: convicted criminals; drug users / people on methadone; and those who have a previous conviction for abuse or neglect of a dog, or who have been convicted of keeping a dangerous or out of control dog. Respondents also thought that first-time dog owners should not be permitted to own certain breeds of dogs, and that no one living in a flat without access to a private garden and no one under age 21 should be allowed to own a dog.
• Rehoming centres should take more responsibility for rehomed dogs. While respondents highlighted the good work being done by many rehoming services, some thought that not all rehoming services took enough responsibility and care in matching up rescued dogs with their new owners. Occasionally, respondents suggested that only well-behaved dogs should be released back to new owners from rehoming centres, while those with significant behavioural problems should be put down.
• Compulsory third-party insurance. The point was also made that if all dog owners were required to have third-party insurance, insurance costs would soon lead to less demand for dangerous dogs.

Scotland for Animals campaign response

9.25 The Scotland for Animals campaign response included other suggestions for promoting responsible dog ownership. Many of these echoed the suggestions described above regarding amendments / improvements to current legislation: (i) agreement to be made involving police, procurators fiscal and sheriffs to deal with any incidents through the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and not the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; (ii) this with a view to removing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 from statute completely; and (iii) no reference to be made to breed or characteristics in any legislation.

9.26 The campaign response also highlighted the need for dogs to wear a collar and tag with details of the dog and registration number at all times when in a public place; and mandatory basic training to be required for prospective dog owners.

Q25 Did the consultation paper explain the key issues sufficiently?

9.27 Question 25 of the consultation questionnaire asked whether the consultation paper explained the key issues sufficiently. Altogether, 954 respondents provided a comment at Question 25. In all, 723 of the responses contained either the single word "yes" or some other variant of "yes" ("yes it did", "yes it was clear and precise", etc.). while 37 responses contained the single word "no" or a variant of "no". A further 21 responses used terms such as "adequate" or "ok" or "fairly well".

9.28 The remaining 173 responses contained comments of a more substantive nature. Respondents made comments not only about the consultation paper (as asked in Question 25) but also about the consultation process, and about the coverage and balance of the consultation questionnaire.

9.29 Fifty-two respondents provided comments in which they enumerated topics or areas which they thought had been omitted, or where coverage should have been more detailed. Suggestions for additional topics, or for more detail (or questions) on some of the topics covered, included:

• More detailed statistics and information on aggressive breeds, numbers and types of attacks, numbers of strays and abandonments, Dog Control Notices, etc. (11)
• More discussion / details / questions on muzzling (10)
• More discussion / details / questions on other measures (e.g. compulsory insurance, control of dogs in public places, neutering, regulation of private breeders, etc.) (6)
• More discussion / details / questions on licensing (3)
• More discussion of evidence on comparable schemes both in the UK and elsewhere (3).

9.30 Fourteen respondents said there was too much emphasis within the consultation on microchipping, which they did not believe was the main issue in relation to responsible dog ownership. Linked to this, six respondents said that no rationale was offered in the consultation paper which linked compulsory microchipping with impacts on dog attacks.

9.31 Fourteen respondents described the questionnaire or consultation as "biased", "one-sided" and "leading" and questioned whether the decision to introduce compulsory microchipping had already been made.

9.32 Seven respondents made comments about the "framing" of the consultation and said that the consultation focused too much on the "problem" of dogs rather than the problem of irresponsible dog owners. These respondents thought that the consultation revealed an antipathy towards dogs and dog ownership. A further seven respondents thought that the proposals were "ill thought out" or showed a "lack of understanding" of the issues.

9.33 Nineteen respondents commented that they either hadn't been able to find the consultation document (2) or hadn't read it (17). Five respondents said the document was too brief or too narrow, while four respondents said it was too long, too repetitive or too complex. Finally, 12 respondents took the opportunity to reiterate their views on some aspect of the consultation.

Q26 Did you have sufficient time to respond to the consultation?

9.34 Question 26 of the consultation questionnaire asked whether respondents considered that they had sufficient time to respondent to the consultation. Altogether, 978 respondents provided a response to Question 26. In all, 824 of the responses contained either the single word "yes" or some other variant of "yes" ("plenty of time to respond", "ample", etc.) while 44 responses contained the single word "no" or a variant of "no". Six responses were unclear ("yesno", "n/a", etc.).

9.35 The remaining 104 responses all focused on some aspect of the (lack of) publicity for the consultation. Respondents belonged to one of two groups. The first group (69) of respondents explained that if it had not been for a personal contact, or some chance encounter, or because of something they read on Facebook or some other social media site, or due to some other network that they belonged to (some but not all of which related to their interest in dogs), they would not have been aware of the consultation. These respondents particularly highlighted the perceived lack of publicity or advertising for the general public. In general these respondents thought the length of the consultation period was adequate; however the time to respond might have been limited if they had not been alerted to the consultation early on.

9.36 The second group (35) respondents made the same point about the perceived lack of publicity but highlighted that they themselves had found out about it in good time, although they were concerned that others might not have.

9.37 Three respondents commented rather more negatively. Two respondents suggested that the lack of publicity and the launch of the consultation over the Christmas and New Year had been selected deliberately to minimise response, while the third thought "it was launched with no publicity in an obvious attempt to slide it in".

9.38 A few other comments made at this question referred to issues not relating to the time available for the consultation. These have been included in the analysis of Question 27 below.

Q27 Any other comments on the conduct of the consultation?

9.39 Question 27 of the consultation questionnaire asked for any other comments on the way the consultation was conducted. Altogether, 764 respondents provided a response to Question 27. About half of these responses (386) were either the single word "no" or indicated the respondent was fully content with the consultation process.

9.40 The remaining 378 respondents provided comments of a more substantive nature. Five key themes were raised by respondents as described below.

• The first key theme, which was raised by 175 respondents, was that the consultation had not been advertised widely enough. These comments echoed the comments already reported on in relation to Question 26 above. Of this group, around 20 respondents made some pejorative statement about the lack of advertising for example that the consultation exercise was "clandestine" or "secretive", or "underhand" or "slipped in under the radar". These latter comments were often raised in relation to compulsory muzzling, which these respondents felt had been "tagged on".
• The second key theme, which was raised by 46 respondents, was that accessing and completing the online form was not easy. Respondents raised a number of points under this heading including that:
• o Older people do not have internet access
• o The form had to be completed in one sitting - there was no save or review function
• o In some cases respondents wished to tick more than one box and this was not possible
• o The design was awkward with the respondent required to delete / move text
• o The form was complex, and took a long time to navigate and complete.
• The third key theme, which was raised by 36 respondents, was that the consultation exercise had not addressed the key issues in relation to responsible dog ownership or that the balance of the questionnaire was wrong. Respondents reiterated that, while microchipping dominated the questions, this was not warranted. Other topics such as education, training, the enforcement of existing legislation, and licensing were more important, but had not been considered in depth. A range of more specific points were made about (lack of) coverage such as:
• o There should be a ban on breeding Staffordshire bull terriers for a few years
• o The proposals had not been properly thought through in relation to the fact that dogs travel into / outwith Scotland on holiday
• o The ideas for dog parks had not been introduced or explored
• o Tackling the "cultural" issue whereby an aggressive dog was seen by some as a status symbol had not been addressed
• o The number of dogs that should be allowed to be under the control of one person had not been discussed
• o The existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and tag for identification had not been sufficiently highlighted.
• The fourth key theme, which was raised by 34 respondents, related to the 'framing' of the consultation. Respondents were concerned that the consultation was a "knee jerk" reaction to sensationalised media coverage of a relatively small number of very serious attacks by dogs and had been prompted by newspaper campaign(s) and by comments made by victims of attacks. These respondents emphasised that the vast majority of dog owners were responsible, and it was only a small minority who caused problems. It was this latter group who should be targeted. Many of these respondents felt the tone of the consultation was negative and that it was "anti-dog". Moreover, some respondents thought that in the grand scheme of things the issue of responsible dog ownership was relatively unimportant.
• The fifth key theme, which was raised by 16 respondents, was that, in developing the materials for the consultation (i.e. the consultation document and the consultation questionnaire), the Government had not consulted widely enough. It was thought that there had been too much attention paid to voices that the Government wished to hear, and to vocal pressure groups. This was at the expense of listening to a broader group of concerned and responsible owners including ordinary owners, professionals, and related organisations including dog clubs, animal welfare organisations, dog trainers, etc. There was specific criticism of the list of invitees to the summit which had been held in March 2014, with respondents mentioning key groups who had not received an invitation but should have, as well as groups who had received an invitation but should not have.

9.41 Finally, 34 respondents used Question 27 as an opportunity to reiterate their views about the substantive questions in the consultation.